If we vote for Brexit what happens

vivatifosi

Here's the key points from Tusk's/PM Muscat of Malta press conference and the Q&A:
Main agenda item: Brexit. Proposing new guidelines to the 27 member states. We have worked fast as treaty only gives us two years. Main elements. "These are fundamental and we firmly stand by them":

Our duty is to minimise the uncertainty and disruption caused by Brexit for citizens, businesses and member states. It is about damage control.

1. Think of people first. People from all over Europe work, study and live in the UK. We need reciprocal and non-discriminatory guarantees.

2. After Brexit, EU laws will no longer apply to the UK so we need to prevent a legal vacuum for companies.

3. We will also need to make sure that the UK honours all financial commitments and guarantees that it has taken as a member state. I promise that the EU will do the same.

4. We will aim to avoid a hard border in Ireland and support the peace process.

These form the first phase of our negotiations. Once these have been agreed we can work on the framework for our future arrangements.

We share the UK's desire to establish a strong partnership with strong ties reaching beyond the economy and including security.

The talks will be difficult, complex and some times confrontational. But we will not adopt a punative approach. Brexit itself is punitive enough. We need to make this as smooth as possible and I have agreed to stay in regular contact with Theresa May and will visit her in London before the next European Council.

Muscat: it will be a tough negotiation but it will not be a war. Membership of the EU is the superior option. We need to ensure that our citizens EU in Britain and British in EU are not used as bargaining chips by either side so we need to settle this matter quickly.
There is no room for parallel negotiations. This will be determined by the European Council alone. We will show flexibility and be ready for transition periods as necessary, but these will be governed by European institutions. The issue of NI is being given special consideration. We know the sensitivities that exist and are looking at innovative and pragmatic solutions to ensure that peace is maintained.

(my words... in order to get all of this down I couldn't type verbatim, so apologies for any slight misinterpretation anywhere).

Herzlos

I think we're talking at cross purposes (probably deliberately).

I'm not arguing that the ROW can do anything about knock-offs coming from China-> ROW, including fines etc. I'm talking about trying to sell stuff *to* China. It's incredibly hard to sell into China and I don't see any way to make that easier unless there's a massive cultural shift in China. Do you disagree?

Ok, so that link claims that 76 percent of Chinas urban population will be middle class by 2022, where middle class has a household income of $9-$32k. Only about half of Chinas population is regarded as urban.

So we're talking about a middle class market of about 550mn Vs the EUs 450mn, but the EU's still much more wealthy, as a household income of $9k isn't going to let you import much in the way of luxury goods. Not that you'd want to, when you can buy knock-offs for a fraction of the price, potentially made in the same factory by the same people.


By luxury goods I'm talking about stuff where image is important - where there's value in buying the real one to impress people. Billionairres will want to be seen in £250k Rolls Royce rather than a £30k Geely. Everyone else will be happy enough with the Geely.

By mundane stuff, I'm talking about the things where brand isn't that important, food, consumables, low end tech. Why are the (still relatively poor on the world stage) population going to pay over the odds for our stuff Vs their own stuff that's (as far as they are concerned) the same.

vivatifosi

Q&A:
BBC: you say no separate negotiations between separate states and the UK.
Tusk: I want to be very cautious and precise. I have no doubt after the Summit of Rome that all 27 want and will be rerepsented in the negotiations. If they want to achieve constructive negotiations then they MUST negotiate only with the 27 as a unity.
MUSCAT: we are in regular contact with the UK. We will continue to engage, but and this is the clear demarcation line, when it comes to Brexit and future relationships, there is a clear commitment to have just one point of contact: Barnier.

You won't move onto a second phase until "sufficient progress" made, what does this mean.
Sufficient progress... EU27 will probably decide in the Autumn and then move on.

Reuters: a transition period is anticipated in the guidelines, why have you included ECJ and .... in them?
Tusk: there is no such thing as a brexit bill or penalty for leaving, it is just about fairness and commitments. For both sides it is important that we want to be fair to each other.
Muscat: there is no Brexit bill. The letter from May recognises that the UK has commitments. Those commitments must be respected and we need to come up with a methodology that shows this, as well as what the UK should take from EU assets as a balance sheet.
In terms of the ECJ and transition periods... you are still a member and still have access to a membership situation. While you are in transition, these organisations such as the ECJ will still stand as you are still a member and have access to a membership situation. We will not intrude on what happens afterwards within the UK. When it comes to a free trade agreement, we will decide what types of operations will govern.

TV Malta: asked about May's letter and the wording re security cooperation
Tusk: after terror attack in London we know that this is a common problem. I know Theresa May well enough and know her views. This is a misinterpretation, security is not being used as a bargaining chip, our partners are wise and decent partners. This is why I am absolutely sure that nobody is interested in using this as a bargaining chip.
Muscat: we have had reassurances from the British government that this is a misinterpretation and they are decent partners, not bargaining on the security of our citizens.

kabayiri

This is all just statesman talk IMO.

Let the negotiators do their job, I say.

Tusk may wish to be 'precise' about the absence of separate negotiations, but he wasn't able to shut up the likes of the Spanish fruit growing federation from declaring their stance. Empty words then.

Fella

Herzlos wrote: »

I don't really accept the result, in that it's not a clear mandate from the people.

This line has been used a fair bit but it doesn't hold water. Lots of results are close, that doesn't make them invalid. The Tory election victory was narrow, that doesn't make it any less legitimate.

Would you honestly have refused to accept an equally narrow victory for Remain?

kabayiri

Fella wrote: »

This line has been used a fair bit but it doesn't hold water. Lots of results are close, that doesn't make them invalid. The Tory election victory was narrow, that doesn't make it any less legitimate.

Would you honestly have refused to accept an equally narrow victory for Remain?

Cameron had an opportunity to define the terms of the referendum differently.

He could have defined it as a clear mandate needed; something like 55/45;or 60/40.

I don't think this entered his head, because they were so confident that the status quo would prevail. After all, it worked in Scotland.

mrginge

Tromking wrote: »

EU now sounding more conciliatory this morning by suggesting that trade talks could begin if "sufficient progress" is made on separation talks.
1 zip to the UK perhaps?

mrginge wrote: »

I expect the reality to be a compromise where for example we agree a payment on some things in order to kick off trade talks and deal with the contentious payment issues during or after. Something along those lines.

Pragmatism will always trump media friendly rhetoric and posturing.

Herzlos

Fella wrote: »

This line has been used a fair bit but it doesn't hold water. Lots of results are close, that doesn't make them invalid. The Tory election victory was narrow, that doesn't make it any less legitimate.

Lots of results are close, but they are rarely regarded as a "clear mandate" like Brexit is being claimed.

Would you honestly have refused to accept an equally narrow victory for Remain?

Absolutely. It wouldn't be a clear mandate in either direction. No outcome with a statistically insignificant majority can be regarded as clear. Marginal, sure, but not clear or representative.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Herzlos wrote: »

I think we're talking at cross purposes (probably deliberately).

I read your post and much of it I will go along with to variable degrees.

Consider this though: why do YOU think so many Chinese love to study here and/or to visit and shop here in the UK?
Don't try to equate Chinese incomes to other parts of the world BTW - the disposable income increasing numbers of Chinese have is the driving factor.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/record-number-of-chinese-tourists-flocking-to-london-after-brexit-sparks-plunge-in-the-pound-a3438751.html

This desire for UK products is in large part at least to do with our perceived qualities and our history.
Something that much of the rest of the world does not have.

Also 76% of over 1.4 billion by 2020 = around 1.1 billion potential consumers - double the 550 million you suggest.
And since numbers are already increasing significantly as per my earlier link, I think it only fair to say that this suggested increase may well continue.

I quite agree that trade to China isn't easy ......... also that there may well not be much of a market for the "mundane" BUT there is real and large potential.
We as a nation have much that the Chinese admire and the possibilities for much-increased trade are real.

Fella

Herzlos wrote: »

Absolutely. It wouldn't be a clear mandate in either direction. No outcome with a statistically insignificant majority can be regarded as clear. Marginal, sure, but not clear or representative.

The referendum demonstrated that we've been living in a situation where the MINORITY opinion held sway. if you think how riled the Remainers are at leaving the EU because "only" a million or so more people wanted to leave than stay, imagine how the Brexit camp has felt.

All that aside though, the simple fact is the EU has changed beyond recognition to what was signed up to in the 70s & a simple majority vote, however unsatisfactory to the losing side, was the only fair way to decide if we should remain a part of it.